testimony was used appropriately? >> i have no idea. the people who were singled out for disciplinary action, were they allowed to read the final classified report to find out -- >> evidence was used against him? two of those individuals have told me they were not allowed to read the classified report. >> do you believe that the rrb does enough to ensure that a similar tragedy does not happen in the future? anna again, i have not -- >> i have not read the complete report, so i cannot make a judgment at this point. >> did you have an opportunity ?o make input >> i had a two our conversation with the board. >> i'm going to yield some time fetz.e gentleman, mr. chafe it >> to your knowledge, did we

ever ask the libyans for permission to fly over their country? >> frequently. >> but did we, the night of the attack? >> the night of the attack? >> once this incident started, did we seek permission from the libyan government to do a flyover? > the record shows a uab was flying over libya, and it had permission to be there. todid we have permission fly anything other than an unarmed drone over libya during the attack? >> no. >> would you have known that? >> yes. >> based on your experience, do you believe the libyans would have granted overflight rights if we had requested it?

, i believe that. mr. chairman, i think one of the unanswered questions is, if it is a possibility, if there is chance that we could get military overflight, if we could get a military flight there, and we would ask permission in advance. anconcern is there was never intention, there was never an attempt to get these military aircraft over there. i think one of the hard questions we have to ask is not only about the tankers but what was the nato response. we flew for months over libya, months. we conducted an air campaign. .e have assets, nato partners we have worked with the italians. it is stunning that our the united states of america, could not get a tanker in the air? mr. hicks,, when did you think this was actually over, this was

done, we were safe? not until our personnel landed intricately on the c-130. a and even then, there is reason why you had to leave the facility in tripoli. >> that is correct. >> when did you return to tripoli? >> we returned i believe on the 14th. >> and security? >> they arrived on september 12. >> and the governor never asked asked the government never asked for permission. this is one of the key concerns. in the last minute, i want to ask mr. thompson, i want to read an excerpt of an e-mail sent by you to timothy walsh and james webster on wednesday, september 12,@11:10 in the morning. , daniel benjamin on the

phone this morning, he understands my point, concurs, but expressed his pessimism regarding the deployment and by extension does not extend a lobby for our inclusion." to remind everybody here, didn't daniel benjamin recently state that any claim that key elements of the counterterrorism bureau such as that were cut out were simply, "untrue"? is that your understanding? >> correct. >> how do you react to that? he says it was not true publicly, but based on the e- mail it sounds like you had a discussion with him. what happened in that discussion? >> he was on the phone from germany. another member of our front office had been talking to him, she asked if he wanted to talk to me. i gave him a quick rundown of what had happened the night before, kept him informed via blackberry about the concerns,

and obviously the -- when we finally understood how many people had been murdered that night, he was shocked and appalled, wanted to know if there was anything he could do, and i told him about the dismissal and how it was dismissed in terms of getting of town.e out i would just add that it is more than process, and it is more than some of the things that have been stated. my biography is in the record. we live by a code. that code says you go after people when they are in peril when they are in the service of their country. we did not have the benefit of hindsight in the early hours, and those people who were -- who are in peril in the future need to know that we will go get them and we will do everything we can to get them out of harms

way. that night unfolded in ways that no one could have predicted when it first started, and it is my strong belief then, as it is now, that we needed to demonstrate that resolve even if we had still have the same outcome. >> thanks the gentleman. just want to reiterate, mr. chairman, your point to me, that rather than speculate what mr. benjamin, mr. kennedy, and others may think or may have said i'm a we will have the opportunity -- >> we look forward to it. all time is expired. he now go to the gentlelday from illinois, ms. kelly. thanktoo, would like to you for your service and your patients sitting here almost three hours. my condolences to the family. mr. hicks, i would like to ask you about your testimony about

the flight from tripoli to benghazi. in your interview with the committee you explained that the first plane from tripoli to benghazi left on the night of the attack around 1:15 a.m. is that at -- is that correct question mark, no, it arrived in benghazi at 1:15. >> there was a security team including two oteri personnel? >> yes. >> a second flight left tripoli the next morning, september 12, ?etween 6:00 and 6:30 is that correct? >> i think the flight left a little later, but the timelines have not not -- merged to great extent, given time. >> you said four military personnel were told not to board that plane and this this call came from special operations command africa, is that correct? >> that's what i understand. >> you were asked if you knew

what was the rationale that they were given that they could not go ultimately, and you explained they did not have the right authority from the right level, is that correct? >> i think that's correct. >> so you basically don't know why they were told not to get on the plane. >> i have no idea why they were told not -- why they were not allowed to get on that airplane. >> this morning the department of defense released a press release. "the team leader called spatial relations -- special relations africa -- reported the intention to remove -- to move his team to benghazi aboard the libyan c-130, and as the mission and benghazi at that point had shifted to evacuation, the special operations command africa operations center directed hinted continue providing support to the embassy in tripoli. we continue to believe there was nothing this group could have done had they arrived in benghazi, and they performed superbly in tripoli.

in fact won the first aircraft arrived in tripoli, these four played a key role in receiving, treating, and moving the wounded. i would like to yield the rest of my time to mr. connolly. >> i thank my colleagues. >> does the gentlelday want that in the record? >> yes. >> mr. hicks, you said rather emphatically that the video had no material impact in libya. i am a is correct. i am a you talked several times about several decisions with the prime minister, who referred to it as a terrorist act, not as a protest, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> we don't want to leave the misimpression here. the libyan government is someone in -- someone and -- somewhat -- they are not a unified government. you publish a story quoting thedity of -- quoting

libyan deputy prime minister, who said that his initial instinct was to avoid inflaming the situation with people angry about the video in libya. he also criticized the americans in the mission for failing to heed the libyan government advice to pull its personnel or beef up security, especially in light of recent violence in the city and the likelihood that the video would provoke protests. that same article interviewed people engaged in the assault in benghazi, who cited, according to "the new york times," a 14 minute video, that this was due to their anger. thehe libyan government -- libyan government did not speak with one voice, there were disparate voices, and some did see the video as an influence, and i don't want to mislead the public at there was a unified perspective and that narrative is entirely false and was at the time. would you care to comment? position int -- our

the embassy -- sorry, that the video was not an instigator of anything that was going on in libya. i understand that these people were quoted. in fact, on september 20, the prime minister raised the video in front of the press, and deputy secretary burns was there. but we saw no demonstrations related to the video anywhere in libya. the only event that transpired was the attack on our consulate on the night of september 11. >> thank you very much. i thank my colleague. i would like to enter into the record "new york times" article, september 12. >> i think under the circumstances it would be appropriate to put in the record something that says we were stupid to still have a consulate in benghazi, that it was an unreasonable risk and it

should have been closed down in light of the danger, and in a videoy may have been reaction. that is a good balance. for thatk the chairman unanimous consent comment. >> with that, we go to the gentleman from arizona. >> first to the families, thank you for the heroism that your sons exhibited. to the three of you at the stand, thank you for your bravery, particularly in light of how we treated whistleblowers today and in the past. mr. hicks, did you have -- did you ever question officials in washington about what secretary rice said on sunday talk shows? >> yes. assistant secretary jones called me after the talkshow event. i asked her why she had said there was a demonstration when we had reported that there was an attack. >> was she the only one that you

talked to? >> yes. >> and her what it -- her reaction was? , i don'taction was know, and from the tone i could tell i should not proceed any further. >> so she was very curt. >> yes. , did you receive any negative feedback based on this conversation? >> over the next month i began to receive counseling from assistant secretary jones about my management style, things that i basically was already doing on the ground. but nevertheless, i implemented everything she asked me to do. >> something that you were highly recommended, highly accommodated for. could i have the video to be played on screen please? the fact is we have four dead americans. was it because of a protest or guys out for a walk overnight

who decided they wanted to kill americans? what difference at this point does it make? it is our job to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. >> i am really mad, but mr. hicks, could i give you the opportunity to respond to that question? what difference does it make? ,> i think the question was what difference did it make? president mcgarr f was on -- was wholeed in front of the world. a friend of mine who a dinner with him in new york during the un season told me that he was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later, and i definitely believe that it

negatively affected our ability to get the fbi team quickly to benghazi. >> so that definitely impacted getting the fbi to look at the crime scene, did it not? >> absolutely. to thehen you talked libyan government, were they responsive when you asked about access to the fbi? >> it was a long slog of 17 days to get the fbi team to benghazi, working with various ministries to get ultimately agreement to support that visit to get them to benghazi, but we accomplished that mission. but again, at the highest levels of the government, there was never really a positive approval. , aso this false labeling

responsive -- a response the factso a video, on the ground affected our ability to get to the crime scene afterwards. how long was it before the fbi was allowed access into benghazi to examine the crime scene? >> 17 days. >> was the crime scene secured during that time? was not. we repeatedly asked the libyan government to secure the crime scene, but they were in a bill to do so -- but they were unable to do so. >> the fbi was sitting in aaa for weeks waiting for the approval of the libyan government to travel to benghazi. for weeks waiting for the approval of the libyan government to travel to benghazi. they were denied access into benghazi, right? am i correct. i am a what were they doing with their time? interviewing

witnesses that they could find and meet with in tripoli, and they were also engaging with the government in order to develop a cooperative investigation with the libyans, who sent an investigator to benghazi. >> were you interviewed by the fbi? >> i was never interviewed by the fbi. >> never? nice story. i yield back my time. >> we now go to the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses for being here. it is my understanding that we have had nine oversight hearings on the benghazi -- since benghazi, the horrific attacks on september 11, 2012. ike many of my colleagues have expressed of the family, i believe we need to continue to do everything within our power as congress to get to the and thes

recommendations that will prevent this from happening again. in addition to our condolences, the things that we need to do most is our jobs, to come up with the recommendations to prevent this. one of the overall conclusions of the accountability review board was just that, "that congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the state department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives here co that was -- and meet mission imperatives." it was a direct statement out of the review board recommendation. i think each of you agree that congress must do its part, am i correct? yes or no, real quick. >> yes. , i juststher chairman would hope that after this

nine oversight hearings, that we will begin to work on some specific recommendations that we can bring forward, and that all of us working together can do our job to protect our embassy. i think that is what the public wants, i believe and hope that that is what the families want, for the memory and their legacy of those who lost their lives. and i would say it does cost money. mr.er norstrom, i know -- nordstrom, i know that you say it is not just about money, but it is possibly about prioritizing considerations. in the past, my colleagues on the other side have not been willing to make the kinds of serious and sustained commitments to funding that are necessary for large-scale and long-term security projects like building facility improvements, for example. >> with the gentleman yield briefly?

may i? >> of course. >> thank you. so with the 2011 and 2012 budget cycles, the budgets gave the state department hundreds of millions of dollars less than what was requested. the fiscal year 2013 budget as proposed by the other side proposed even more cuts. they want to reduce international affairs budget by more than $5 billion less than it was in fiscal year 2012. that is a 9.8% cut to diplomatic security when extrapolated across the whole foreign affairs budget. theiscal year 2016, proposed budget by the other side further cuts funding to international affairs by another $5 billion. this represents a 20% cut to diplomatic security when

extrapolated over the entire foreign affairs budget. andhese are serious significant cuts, and we cannot that they don't have consequences. i know that my colleagues have talked several times about holding people accountable. well, i hope that one of those groups we will hold accountable are ourselves. as members of congress, to do our jobs, to properly fund the safety of our embassies so that this never happens again. i urge my republican counterparts to work with us in a bipartisan effort to actually fund these improvements to our embassy security and to follow through on the 29th arb recommendations that have already been made, and those that we believe have already -- should also be supported in this

hearing. iq, mr. chairman. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. asked specifically the question as to whether or not the funding issues impacted the actions that took lace, and she said no. i am really intrigued at this point in time by some of the commentary, because one of the things i would like to follow up on the questioning to mr. nordstrom, that came to you from mr. lankford, some of the decisions that were made. being in benghazi, because i am going to tell you, i am struggling to find out how we had the united states ambassador in a marginally safe american compound, in an onreasingly hostile area, an iconic day like september 11, with limited security. i think there are some issues that you were talking about first, decisions that were made

about allowing occupancy in the first place. could you tell me quickly about how that was enabled to be approved? >> that is the same question that i have to this day. law, itding to the appears that it must be signed off by the secretary of state, and there was no delegation. >> certainly for parts of it, yes. infollowing up, on july 31, fact, i go back on the record, there were 16 special forces in libya, 14 department of state personnel. on august 31, shortly before that had been reduced to six individuals in tripoli, three in benghazi. why the cutback on security? thegain, that is one of questions that i had.

i have never seen it addressed to me, why are these decisions that we made turns down? in fact, there was a proposal that went back all the way to a month after we had arrived asking for $2.1 million for staffing to have 19 ds agents maintained throughout that time period. i still don't have any understanding as to what happened to that proposal. confidence ine the ability of the locals of the country who were purportedly designed to provide security to you? did you have confidence in their ability to provide that? >> six inks lake was the best bad plan. - six singly -- >> did you have confidence in that? , no. >> did you report that two officials in washington, dc? raised the issue

of doing some counterintelligence setting of the people who had worked for us. ultimately, that was turned down even though we wanted it because the department of state for it which we did not have. it was our understanding that was going to be paid for by washington. , i know you have background in counterterrorism. i am going back on -- is his testimony provided by lieutenant colonel would, who was doing andice in tripoli ultimately wanted to be in benghazi. he talked about facebook statements that were made about the situation in benghazi. there were a series of issues -- an rpg attack on the red cross in early may, a second attack in june. an attack against the un mission on april 6.

convoyck against a un on able 10. an assassination attempt on the british ambassador on june 11 with rpg's thomas attempted carjacking on august 6. sst officers of the united states. in your mind, in your professional opinion, would this suggest to you that the facility in benghazi, via reasonable person with your experience or in the state department, would be likely to be considered a possible or even likely target of a terrorist incident? >> that based on the history, yes. >> in light of that, would you have been happy with the idea that it was allowed to be maintained under less than the staffing that had insisted only a month or two before and under standards which were only two in the entire country, according to the testimony, not meeting

the minimal requirements of safety? >> no. sir. >> what is normalization and why were we doing this? >>but that has been a question even at the -- that others have raised. i'm not sure. sarcastically we saw it as do more with less. i first saw that term normalization in that proposal a month after we arrived. it was artie talked about normalizing our footprint -- there was talk about normalizing our footprint. it struck me as being part of some sort of script, like the reason we do not close the facility and benghazi despite the risk.

there was already a political decision that said we're going to keep it open. that's fine but no one has ever come out and said that. that we may that risk and we made that decision. and take responsibility for it. expired.e has >> mr. hicks, did you have a response as well? >> being under siege or in a hostile environment where we are surrounded by potential threats. we wanted to move towards normal life and a withdrawal of extra ds personnel. and managing more of a problem that included the recruitment of libyans to provide the

security we need. >> thank you. were you planning on bringing her to libya? you mentioned your what being a part of the decision process. were you planning on bringing her to libya since it was normalized? >> i was actually selected by the assistant secretary for affairs. >> we spent a lot of time in lebanon together. a good man. as to family returning to libya,normalization means you bring back -- with that part of what was going on? >> that is what we were reporting towards. -- we were pointing towards. we had a long talk before he left for benghazi and we felt optimistic about the trajectory, even though all the

security problems were going on. we thought the libyans were getting their political act together. it were going to get a constitution, the economy was going to pick up and stabilize. to --t project was retail reached out to to the board members of the american school and start walking about the open the school in september and than start working about the possibility of opening the school would allow me to bring my family to join me. that was a condition my wife made for my going to my second unaccompanied assignment three you am sure she is glad to home now. >> he is very glad to have me me home. the gentleman from new mexico is patiently waiting. i'm sorry. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. my condolences to all the

families and everybody who suffered from this tragedy. i hope you pray for us that we do the right thing. as policy makers and not as politicians. mr. nordstrom, you stated he felt the security situation and benghazi was unsafe. we have been clear on placing blame with a number of people. given everything that was going on and everything you have said today and what you said on october 10, at any point did he suggest to ambassador stephens that he should not travel to benghazi on september 11 and that the situation was volatile in this facility -- and the facility not secure? >> i had departed post on july 26. like i did not have the opportunity to do that. i would defer that to who was there at the time.

it is my understanding he raised concerns and discuss that. >> so you have your opinions today but you did not have the same opinion back then? september 11. i departed six weeks prior. >> at the gentleman would indulge --i think he is asking what was your opinion on the day you left question mark works ok. benghazi?e to >>i understand -- i think he is asking what was left? i understand. well. the way forward and the threats in the east. it was very concerning to us. the increasing in the targeting. it was something i mentioned back to our headquarters. in reporting. it was something the minister of

interior brought up when the ambassador wenthe met with the minister in july. one highlighted number growing extremism in the east, particularly benghazi. that was something we discussed and we were concerned we were not getting the resources. >>we've expressed concerns been up to the point where you said i would not go if i were you. >> we never had that discussion in part because the ambassador had not indicated any desire to travel to benghazi. my hope would have been that they would have fat resources such to augment and a action. >> resources require other kinds of resources. they require actual funding, etc. there is a ballot to creating -- there is a balance to creating the kind of atmosphere that

would be required -- there is a required. >> a downsizing of personnel. is what we were looking at in tripoli. any time the ambassador traveled, that would've impacted security in both races -- in both places. because you would have been splitting of resources which i think is what ultimately happened. >> mr. hicks, could you shed some light on this discussion. >> and the planning meetings we have for ambassador stephens chipped to benghazi, the -- trip to benghazi, the original security officer raised serious concerns about his travel because of those concerns, the ambassador trip. he first agreed he would go on a low-profile way. in advance. we would not do any planning at meetings until right before he went. second, he eventually decided also to shorten his trip.

he initially went to go on the eighth. he went on the 10th instead and narrowed the time frame he would be in tripoli. the third step you took was that one public event he planned would take place at the very end of his trip just before he left. >> basically you're describing what i've known of the ambassador is that he was very committed. did listen to advice but he was very determined and committed to do his job. >> he went there to do his job. he felt he had a political imperative to go to bend the -- to go to benghazi and represent the united states to move the project forward to make the consulate a permanent constituent post. >> i am so proud of his commitment. i hope we can have a commitment up here.

as elected officials to do the right thing so this never happens again, thank you very much. >> we not go to the gentleman from tennessee. >> today's hearing is about one simple thing -- finding the truth. --now families want the jews wanted the truth and the american people want the truth. get i listen to this question today and there seems to be a partisan zeal to finding the truth. i don't understand that. if you listen to the other side, you would think it is time to move on. would say what difference does it make. some of the family members i talked to before this hearing, i guarantee this makes a difference today. we want to know who made some of these decisions and why they made some of these decisions. the only encouraging part of her from the other side is they feel you all should be protected. your ability to testify rates of that's good. i really appreciate you all being here. it matters to a lot of people.

mr. hicks, after your visit with congressman j fitz --congressman shift? >>clock yes, i did. prior to the visit, assistant secretary jones visited. she pulled me aside and said i needed to improve my management style and indicated people were upset. myad no indication that staff was upset at all. following my return to the united states, i attended chris'funeral then came back to washington. assistant secretary jones delivered a blistering critique

of my management style. she even said --i don't know why larry pope would want you to come back. she said she did not understand why anyone in tripoli would want me to come back. theet] the attack -- before attack, you got a call from secretary clinton and the president praising you for your service and how you handled things. was there a moment in your mind when all this praise and something else? itin hindsight, i think began after i asked about ambassador rice's statements on the tv shows. >> there was a comment made about a few people in libya having a problem with this youtube video but someone higher up decided to run with façade and they kept it for

a long time. i would think everyone would want to know the answer why that was done. what other impediments have you had? do you feel like they treated point on? >> i was angry with the way i've been criticized. i thought it was unfounded. i felt like i'd had been tried and convicted in absentia. but i decided i was going to go back and try to redeem myself. i've>> what is your job right n? >> i am a foreign affairs officer in the office of global intergovernmental affairs. werefar cry from what you nearly -- where you were in your level of capabilities. >> yes, sir. >>when he came back to the united states, were you planning on going back to libya? >> i was.

i fully intended to do so. >> what do you think happened? >> based on the criticism i received, i felt that if i will -- i went back, i would never become a working there. -- i would never be comfortable working there. in addition, my family did not want meet to go back. we endured a year of separation when i was in afghanistan. that was the overriding acted. -- factor. i accepted an offer, a no-fault curtailment. that means they would be no criticism of my departure of repercussions. in fact,ambassador pope, when he made the offer to everyone in tripoli when he arrived, he indicated people could expect they would get a good onward assignment. >> i would just close with the fact that we have a president that has made it his policy not to knee jerk argenta conclusions -- or jump to

conclusions when it comes to some tragedy events but why did he do it in comes to some tragedy event, but why did he do it in this case? did he jump to the conclusion this was a protest. we need to find the answer to that. >> protein -- between mike curtailment and my employment now, i had no meaningful and german -- employment. eastern affairs over complementary the job now is a demotion. foreign affairs officer is a designation given to our civil service colleagues. so i've been effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer. >> let me interject one thing. i your opening statement, note you included an

unclassified document reported to be for the president of the united states to the president of libya president of libya. >> yes. >> it does not have a signature. it looks like it was electronically transmitted. this cable, was it from the president of the united states directly? >> yes. >> was a delivered to the president of libya directly? >> it was. >>does it mention terrorist attack anywhere else? this is september 17, which would be that monday afterwards. does this describe the unfortunate circumstances as terrorism to the president of libya? >> i believe it does. >> it is in his opening statement delivered to

everybody. these are inclusions are you -- these are inclusions. quickly to the tragic attack in benghazi. i'm reading through this thing --it is in the record but as far as i can tell, it speaks of as a tragic attack. it doesn't speak to it as a terrorist attack or our war on terror. is that correct? >>but i do not have it before me. >> we will deliver it back to you. someone may want to follow up. your console has a for you. it is an outrageous attack but it does not talk about working together to fight terrorism. >> no. >> thank you for including that in the record. we now go to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to quickly clear out a

couple of loose ends from earlier testimony been asked questions about the cupboard convincing -- about the december 17 mortar brigade. you said --you do have security clearance. you sat in with the meeting with mr.mr. thompson, you testified and answered as to why the fest team was not deployed. one of the things you heard was it might not be to a safe location. do train to deploy to canada or the caribbean islands or other safe locations? or do you train to respond to hotspots?

>> hotspots. >> with there have been any reluctance on the part of you or any of the men and women in your organization to go to libya or anywhere in the world if you were needed to protect americans? >> i hang out with a very noble and great crowd. -- and great crowd. the answer is no. >> i do not think so. i want to talk about what was going on in libya at the time. there are just than a revolution. -- there had just been a revolution. we have a newly elected president democratically elected. we were involved to our nato partners in that. this is probably a win for the united states. we had a relatively from the friendly government going in them we all but make the new president -- we throw him under the bus on the sunday shows. you testified that may have been one of the reasons the fbi was slow getting into libya. you think it damaged our

relationship beyond that with libya? >> a complicated things for that time, particularly with respect to the fbi mission. but libyan people valued our relationship highly. higher than almost any other arab country. population. ambassador stephens went to benghazi on that fateful day, to continue to show our support for what was going on in libya at the time? >> absolutely. especially to the people of benghazi. >> there have been some reports. mr. norton, can you tell me what the will of the deborah 70 mortar's mortar's brigade was? tothat was in unit provided us by the libyan government.

>> were you aware of any ties to islamic terrorists? posting was a facebook that named ambassador stevens and senator mccain. i met with some of my agents and some annex personnel. we discussed that. >> mr. hicks, you were in libya on the night of the attacks. you believe the february 17th melissa took place in that -- militia played a role in those attacks? >> the attackers had to make a long approach march through multiple checkpoints manned by militia. >> i'm going to ask you both

this question. department the state was relying on the militia with extremist ties to protect american diplomats. that does not make any sense. how does that happen? >> you mean like in afghanistan where afghanis working with them them. or in yemen? or in saudi arabia, an attack in 2004. the saudi national guard protecting our facility ran from the scene and took 90 minutes before we get help. >> there is high unemployment in the united states so i would think americans could take those jobs. > unfortunately as i said earlier, one of the things we ran into -- that was a bad bad plan. the unit of the libyan government initially designated for vip protection.

>> i hope these hearings will result in us not having to my on the best of bad plans and we can use folks like mr. thompson for what they were intended and secure our personnel. i see i am out of time. >> only by a little. we now go to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of washington, the chairman of the resources committee, mr. hastings. >> thank you very much and let me add my voice to all of my colleagues -- thank you for your service. we do appreciate your service. have answered may this but i want to get a clarification. mr. jordan was entered into questions regarding the lawyer that came in as it was not allowed to go to the meeting

because he was not qualified to go to that meeting. i want to back up. the state department sent this lawyer. you told why the lawyer was sent? >> he was sent to participate in all the meetings and all the events associated with congressman chafetz'visit . >> did you find that unusual? >> it never occurred to me before in my career. >> the state department did say that this lawyer was going to come and participate in all the meetings? >> yes. >> and then he couldn't because of the protocol. you mentioned the town of the state department changed after the rice interview? >> it began to change. >> give us some examples of how things changed. >> i began to have my management

style counseled by assistant secretary jones. againhe visited, she counseled me on my management style and said the staff was upset. had no indication of staff being upset. washington,ned to she delivered a very blistering critique of my style and again said -- i don't know why larry pope would want to back. >> that leads to an obvious question -- prior to september 10, 2012, had you received any negative feedback from your superiors? developedis and i had a very positive relationship. he trusted me, i trusted him, and we were working together very well. >> in a career as long as yours, you might have a disagreement

with your superiors. was it to the extent that you have felt you were treated after this event last september compared to prior disagreements you may have had with your superiors? on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the worst, >> 10, after. >> that's what i wanted to follow up on. thementioned you feel in job you have it is really a demotion from qualifications you have had in service. have you talked to any of your colleagues or any senior leaders within the state department regarding this? what were those conversations all about? -- after awith couple of friends outside the department intervened with senior officials about my situation, the deputy secretary

and director-general said i would be taken care of. it was this same thing that lowry pope had indicated. i met with the principal deputy assistant secretary for human resources and i talked to him about what options might be available to me. basically, the answer was that i -- that it would have to go through the formal, normal bidding process for assignments and persuade someone that i should be hired. then the conversation with deputy secretary burns was centered around discussions i had had with the leadership of our embassy in mexico city at a political section job which would be a very good job. supportthat he would that but i had to go through the process. it is a very long process.

that position is at a higher grade it. i understand there is protocol's but does that strike you as an unusual with someone of your backgroun =d? >> i was surprised that i was having to go through the process, the normal process. >> especially when the ambassador in mexico city had talked to secretary burns a about bringing the on as his political counselor. >> i heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say if there's a -- if there is any retribution on this that you would have full support of your colleagues. let me lend my support and the support of everybody here. i think a bipartisan support on somebody that comes forth that has a difference of agreement on a policy issue for a decision that killed four americans we want to get whatever we can to

you. thank you very much. >> the time that we can ask witnesses to stacy without a break has expired. four of those of us able to get up and come back and forth, we will take about 10 minutes. i would ask the witness is -- you can either go through that door or distort to use facilities available there without going into the public and we will reconvene in about 10 minutes, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> most people don't know that cigarettes are the main way we are exposed to radioactive isotopes. an average smoker will get the equivalent of hundreds of chest x-rays per year just from their smoking. that is mainly from the pesticides, rather the fertilizers that are put on tobacco.

they put fertilizers around the plant and they contain uranium and uranium to play -- the case to lead. so the same poison that killed a russian spy in london accuser ago is also present in cigarette smoke. that was already discovered in the 1960's. the most easily be preventable cause of death in the modern world, because responsible for 440,000 deaths in united states every year and is completely preventable. we allowed as if it is chewing gum or something. >> stanford university professor robert proctor on tobacco's history and the continuing dangers of smoking, sunday night at 10:00 eastern, part a book-tv on c-span 2. gift that 13was a businessman i purchase to get to the grant family and appreciation for his service during the war. up theentioned coming

hill and being presented this lovely velez she said was furnished with everything in good taste could offer. >> we are in the parlor which was the entertaining part of the home. all know that julia was an avid entertainer. the family spent quite a bit of time here in the parlor also. we know that mrs. grant and their daughter ellen played the piano. imagine a family sitting here and a general and his favorite chair and the other boys listen to their sister and mother plays songs for them. grant launched his plan is essential campaign from galnea. it was located at the desoto hotel. the day after his election, grant and julie opened up their home and the parlor for people, townsfolk to file through and congratulate both of them on his election and the next step of their lives. this is called a lab book she proudly kept papers and friends and her correspondence in here.

over on the dresser, we have a bible that was given to mrs. grant by the methodist episcopal church in 1888. this is the dressing room, the most personal space and the house relating to julia grant's. this is the room she would come into to get ready in the morning, get ready in the evening and great for bad and maybe get a little solitude from everybody in the house. we have a lot of personal things in here that belonged to mrs. grant, her sewing kit she would fromused to mend the socks or so a or the general button on, we have a couple of pairs of her little size 4 shoes that to war and some purses' she would have used as they went out and the town to visit on sunday afternoon. this is where he came back after was a military hero. he started his political career, his rise to the presidency and this is where he was living when he was elected and she became

lady and this was home to them right before that >> our conversation on julia grant is now available on our website, c-span.org/first ladies. tune in monday for our next program on first lady lucy hayes. >> coming up this morning at 9:00 eastern, the u.s. house returns for work on a debt limit bill to allow the government to pay bondholders, social security recipients, after the current debt limit is reached. on c-span 2 at 9:30, the u.s. senate continues work on a water infrastructure bill that authorizes army corps of engineers project for harbors, flood protection, and river dams. the house,c-span 3, a securities committee will examine federal and local cooperation during the boston marathon bombings. spearminutes, rep jackie of california discusses sexual

assaults in the military and the legislation to introduce to change the handling of assaults in the military. at 8:30 a.m., more on the benghazi attacked. >> it seems to me that it came to a head in phone calls your on with lawyers from the department of state prior to congressman chafetz come to visit in libya, is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> what did those lawyers instructed to do? >> i was instructed not to allow the rso, the accuracy -- the active deputy chief of the mission not to be interviewed by chafetz. ♪ host: we want to get your reaction this morning to yesterday's house hearing on the benghazi consula